A former 40 year Atheist analyzes Atheism, without resorting to theism, deism, or fantasy.***If You Don't Value Truth, Then What DO You Value?***If we say that the sane can be coaxed and persuaded to rationality, and we say that rationality presupposes logic, then what can we say of those who actively reject logic?***Atheists have an obligation to give reasons in the form of logic and evidence for rejecting Theist theories.

Friday, December 4, 2015

Quote of the Day, #2

"NEWS YOU CAN USE: The 10 Obfuscatory Essentials for Covering Jihad as a Journalist: “Minimize the extent of the threat, separate the jihadist’s ideology from his acts, and if possible, proudly display your Western guilt by attributing the attacks to perceived slights and injustices at the hands of Israel, Europe, or America.”"

Glenn Reynolds

Here's how it's done:

Here are the 10 essentials for crafting the perfect narrative on the jihad as a member of the media:

Make sure that in the headline, lede and/or tweets covering the jihadist attack, you describe events in terms of the inanimate object used to carry out the savagery, whether a car, knife or rock. Remember: jihadis don’t kill people, guns kill people.

Use non-descriptive identifiers so as to conceal the identity of the Muslim attacker(s), such as “Asian,” “North African,” or best of all, “youths.” “Youths” is superior not only because it is the vaguest of identifiers, but because the actions of “youths” can be ascribed to immaturity, or garden-variety student radicalism.

Be sure to quote sympathetic members of the jihadist’s community claiming said jihadist(s) were polite, studious, and never showed any signs of “radicalization.”

Always and everywhere use passive language, such as with the New York Times’ construction “Jewish Man Dies as Rocks Pelt His Car in East Jerusalem.” Passive language allows you to avoid having to identify the victimizer and other inconvenient details damaging to the narrative you wish to craft. It also may keep the jihadist attack off of the search engines.

Never ever tie the Islamic identity of the attackers to terrorism, or far worse, jihadism. In fact, do not use the word “jihadism” at all -- you must not link Muslim terror attacks to Islam. If you can reverse-engineer your article with the goal of illustrating that such acts are random man-caused disasters, do so. If you must identify any ideology, “nihilist” is best, because nihilism and Islamic supremacism are utterly incongruent.

Never ever make it explicit that Muslim attackers are targeting Jews or Christians. Doing so implies that there is a religious motivation for killing infidels.

Where possible, create the appearance of at least a modicum of moral equivalence between victim and victimizer, or even better, a justification or provocation that inspired the jihadist act. If you can, include the jihadists among the body count. This is doubly powerful as it not only creates moral equivalence, blurring the lines between victim and victimizer, but creates a new victimizer of the authorities who killed said jihadists.

Cite government officials and other academics and think-tankers who tie jihadism to material factors, like poverty caused by climate disruption, or socio-economic status generally. If possible, sprinkle in something about Western intolerance, political disenfranchisement, or a lack of effort by the West to integrate Muslims. “Assimilation” should be excised from your mental dictionary.

More broadly, seek to delegitimize the "side" the victims represent. This will help make the victims prima facie.

If it hurts the narrative, omit omit omit!

Master these steps, and you too will be able to be a member in high-standing of the mainstream media.

3 comments:

11. If the audience finds any of the the above 10 techniques hard to swallow then simply remind them of the nearly 1000 year ago Crusade campaign. That should evoke enough guilt to shut them up for a while.

Phoenix, don't forget Hitler and Tim McVeigh were Christians and all religions have radical elements. I hear that quite a bit, even though they are patently ridiculous statements. As I did some research to aggregate all the available information into one document I noticed how much people like ABC, USA Today, and Huff-Po followed these rules perfectly. In their cases, and others, the attempt to first poison the well be mentioning "workplace violence" before moving on to the all the reasons (that they were willing to share) that demonstrably showed that it wasn't random.

If/When I Go Missing Again

Evolution Discussion Zone

Atheism Discussion Zone

Abortion Discussion Zone

"This institution will be based on the illimitable freedom of the human mind. For here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it."Thomas Jefferson, dedicating the University of Virginia

Behavior Problems?

Compendium of Rational Principles

Most people claim to be rational. But few have any idea of what that entails. Here is a list of articles that discuss the principles of logic, rational thought and related topics, such as evidence, truth and wisdom: